Don't understand how no one has brought it up so far ... why are bradman's runs just being deducted for 'correction' - we are correcting for the bradman effect - him being quite a bit better than anyone else ... not him not being there at all .......
what would be fair would be that overall, reduce DGB's average to say 60 in the same no of innings and compute the average of the England bowlers overall in that period ........
I'll come back to that later this evening. It has been brought up before and I'll mention the figure I added back in. I'll do a quick arithmetic on a 60 ave batsmen replacing DGB.
Sorry it took so long. If you replace DGB with a man who averages 60 you get this result for the Eng team 27-39.
Ave v Aus = 32.06
Bowlers v Aus with an ave <30 = 5. (I think Larwood just gets in).
Ave v All teams = 29.33
Adjusted ave v All teams = 27.86 (or thereabouts)
No of bowlers v All teams with an ave <30 = Atleast 8 probably 9.
For mine Aus with DGB is stronger in batting in this period than say Aus from 88-2000. Without DGB then the modern Aussies are. With DGB replaced by a batsman averaging 60 then I'd say they are about the same, maybe give it to the older group - then again they had no one like Gilly. Anyway its close.
Just to repeat the reason I don't add back a player with a 60 average is that he would have already been there. I mean Hammond was famous approaching that ave so a man averaging 60 would have regularly turned out for Aus. Thats why I pick a fringe player whose own ave approximates the global ave with DGB's runs deducted so I don't need to bother.
However the point raised is certainly reasonable. If DGB was more like your average, rare, great batsman (if I can put it like that) then the above is the outcome if he were a Hobbs or Headly or Hammond instead.